Originally Posted by
Going Boeing
CEAFAR has weight in an elevated position, not additional total weight - due to a lot of the electronics being located immediately behind the antennas. This has been the main issue with integrating it into the Type 26 design. The additional volume available in the T26 hull (8,800t V 7.000 for Navantia) is such that BAES is confident that it can build the high capacity AWD with minimal changes.
The Navantia F110 design is more limiting and would require a huge amount of design work - why do that when it has already been done for a superior platform? I seriously doubt that a seaworthy version of the F110 could be built with 96 VLS without removing a lot of other essential capability, the hull size is too limiting.
You need to understand that "volume in the hull" is not the same as displacement volume, which what you've quoted (and btw the Hunter will end up displacing a lot more than 8800te....). There's also a teensy-weensy little question of stability, (including compliance with the provisions of DEF(AUST)5000), which is not simply a question what people tend to call topweight, but includes subdivision, freeboard and downflooding points - all of which can be affected by significant change of role and hence configuration. As will the majority of items of design information.
Once again - its not that F110 would be more or less limited - it would be subject to exactly the same limitations. This is an object lesson in what happens when you make a significant change to a baseline ship (T26 to Hunter) and then try to change it again, without understanding what you're doing.